I saw an interesting discussion written by Michael Egnor in 2023 about Sean Carroll’s view of the immaterial mind here: https://mindmatters.ai
Who is Michael Egnor?
Michael Egnor
Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics, State University of New York, Stony BrookMichael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and is an award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. His book, The Immortal Mind: A neurosurgeon’s case for the existence of the soul, co-authored by Denyse O’Leary, was published by Worthy on June 3, 2025.
Now this article is talking about the human mind and and effects on the physical world or physical body:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University who takes an atheist and materialist philosophical perspective on nature and on science. I have disagreed with him often — I’m in no position to judge his scientific acumen, but his philosophical acumen leaves a lot to be desired. An example of this is a question he asks in a recent documentary about free will (which I haven’t watched yet). In the trailer for the movie, Carroll asks, How in the world does the immaterial mind affect the physical body? Carroll’s denial of libertarian free will is based on this question, and of course, he believes that the immaterial mind does not exist and, if it did exist, could not affect the physical body. Thus, he believes that libertarian free will is nonsense.
Well that is an interesting comment about Carroll’s philosophical acumen. My interest is on the immaterial mind of a transcendent being such as God. Can that mind affect the human mind? Or matter? If miracles are possible then the answer would be yes.
Carroll, however, seems to be a reductionist. Lets leave that until a bit later. Meanwhile, let’s learn some aspects of causation theory. Egnor uses a statue as an example.
1. Material cause is the matter (marble) that the statue is made of. The matter of what something is made is one of the causes of the thing – without the marble, the statue could not exist.
2. Efficient cause is the agent that gives rise to the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the efficient cause is a sculptor.
3. Formal cause is the design principle that underlies the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the formal cause is the idea in the mind of the sculptor of what the sculpture will look like. The formal cause is quite real and is indispensable to an understanding of causation – after all if the form of the sculpture did not exist in the mind of the sculptor as he was working, there would be no sculpture.
4. Final cause is the ultimate goal, purpose, or final state of the causal chain. The final cause for the sculpture might be the sculptor’s desire to express himself artistically or it might be the sculptor’s desire to be paid for his work.
Egnor comments, “In the Aristotelian paradigm, a complete understanding of cause must entail an understanding of all four causes in nature. In causation without a visible efficient agent, formal and final causes are often the same. The formal cause of an acorn growing into an oak tree is the design principle of the oak tree, which is also (in the Aristotelian perspective) the final cause of the acorn growing into the oak tree. The ultimate final cause, according to Aristotle, is God.”
PATTERNS AND PURPOSES IN NATURE
Egnor argues, “Aristotle was right – material and efficient causes alone are inadequate to understand nature because there are patterns and purposes built into nature that we can’t deny.”
He goes on to criticise Carroll, “So, Carroll’s implicit assertion that the immaterial mind could not affect the physical body is predicated on his belief that the only kinds of causes that exist in the physical world are material and efficient causes.“
To me this assumption of Carroll’s is Philosophical Naturalism, which itself is an a priori metaphysical assumption and is not part of science. So I think Egnor is right. My observation is Egnor is Augustinian and Neo-Platonist in his thinking here, whereas Carroll is neither.
MATHEMATICS?
Egnor says, “Ironically, Carroll’s own scientific discipline – quantum mechanics – is a prime example of the importance of formal causes in nature. The scientific description of quantum processes is entirely mathematical, which is a description of formal causes. Matter and individuation disappear at the quantum level. What remains are the mathematical descriptions of quantum particles and dynamics. Contrary to Carroll’s implicit insistence that only material and efficient causes act in nature, quantum mechanics shows that formal (immaterial) causes are fundamental to nature.”
Hmmm.
BIOCHEMISTRY
Egnor makes a point about drugs and biochemistry, “Thus a mental (formal) state can cause a physical state in a way that is currently understood in physics. A particularly striking example of the importance of formal causes in science is the phenomenon of chirality. Chirality is a property of mirror image molecules in which the molecules contain exactly the same number and kinds of atoms connected in exactly the same kind of way except that one is a mirror image of the other. In other words, the matter comprising chiral molecules is exactly the same although the form of the molecules can be radically different. For example, all biological amino acids that make up proteins are L enantiomers (one mirror image). Amino acids that are identical materially but are R enantiomers (mirror images) play no role in protein manufacture. The difference between L and R enantiomers can be a matter of great medical importance and even life and death – Darvon is an analgesic but its enantiomer Novrad is an anti-cough agent. Penicillamine is used in the treatment of arthritis, but its enantiomer is very toxic.“
PHILOSOPHICALLY VACUOUS?
Egnor’s conclusion: “Formal causation is ubiquitous in biology and Carroll’s argument that we cannot have libertarian free will because the immaterial (formal) mind cannot affect matter is philosophically vacuous.”
Fascinating!
I knew Carroll and one other person debated Dinesh D’Souza in 2014, and his debate partner (whose name I do not recall) was a reductionist. It seems Carroll is as well. Now, what does this mean for quantum mechanics? To me there are two questions and they may be the same question.
1. Who is the observer?
2. What is measurement?
As you know, when you take a measurement in the quantum world you perturb the wave function and cause quantum collapse. So a wave suddenly localizes into a particle-like phenomenon. Can a mind function as the observer? How would we ever know?
If God is in the universe (ie, immanent) can his mind perform a measurement (or observation?). What kind of observations are possible? We do not know. But ignorance is not proof of non-existence. So, I am still pondering these questions. I am looking for input on these subjects from a variety of sources. This includes Sean Carroll’s lectures on quantum mechanics. I really enjoy listening to him. I think one just has to be aware of his presuppositions.
If you want to be more aware of issues related to the soul you might check out his new book The Immortal Mind .
Now, it may be worth considering the following definition: Naturalistic evolution, or evolutionary naturalism, is the philosophical concept that all of life, including the human condition and morality, arose through natural processes, rather than supernatural or intentional design. (This is an AI summary.)
I am not happy with AI summaries. The problem is the definitions are taken from websites that are reactions to chatter, are not real propositions, and are mere hyped up opinion. There is no substance underneath. The concepts are fabricated and imaginary.
Note, I can only find one book written on the subject in 1922. Everything else I have found is propaganda from creationist websites where the terms are re-defined to support the war between science and God. ( a political viewpoint, not a scientific one). The book itself is a philosopher’s response to other philosophers in order to find a better naturalism. This is because naturalism was considered to be broken or inadequate.
BTW, this linkage with natural processes would fit neatly with Sean Carroll’s view that there is no free will. It also is congruent with nihilism – the view that human values and maybe even human minds themselves are mere illusions – all in the imagination and not real at all.
I will contend that what scientists do is based on methodological naturalism (MN), not philosophical naturalism (PN). MN produces science. PN produces scientism. PN, being metaphysical, is not a statement about either science or reality. MN is a statement about science, is not metaphysical, and is a statement about an approximation of reality, or a part of reality, but not all of reality. Just the physical part of reality in which humans live.
What I have noticed is the biologos people are adamantly against PN. The young earthers totally ignore PN as if it does not exist. Old earthers and ID people are somewhere in between.
DISTORTIONS – WHY I DONT TRUST MANY CHRISTIANS
Speaking of which … another interesting article: https://www.str.org/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal. I disagree with this person’s definitions of naturalism. The STR people are concordists and distort both philosophy and science.
Then there is another voice: Masters U. These are horrible statements about naturalism at Masters University, which seems to be associated with John MacArthur. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1/. Masters miscontrues and distorts the meaning of almost all of these concepts.
I have come to think that Christians are either terribly dumb or they are terrible liars.
TRANSCENDENCE
The real problem I see in Christianity is somebody in history philosophized that God is “transcendent only.” Yes, God is transcendent. But He is also immanent. I.E., In the world. Affecting the world. Affecting physical reality. He is not entirely outside the physical reality. This is difficult to understand – indeed, no human really grasps it just like no human really grasps the trinity. But the bible and Christianity do not teach that God is purely transcendant (purely supernatural). That is a lie held to by atheists.
Young earth creationists (and concordists?) teach that God can only “create” from outside the physical universe by overturning the physical laws of the universe. To me that is *not* a Christian belief. It is not what the bible teaches. I think the bible teaches that the laws of the physical universe are held fixed by God, and God often creates by using these laws. Can create by using these laws. That is not, BTW, naturalism.
These two cases of Masters and of STR may be the subject of future posts just on them.
Summing Up
So we started with Sean Carroll’s issues with free will. But the real issue is far larger. Free will is really just a side topic.